Minimally invasive removal of thoracic and lumbar spinal tumors using a nonexpandable tubular retractor.

OBJECT Resection of spinal tumors traditionally requires bilateral subperiosteal muscle stripping, extensive laminectomy, and, in cases of foraminal extension, partial or radical facetectomy. Fusion is often warranted in cases of facetectomy to prevent deformity, pain, and neurological deterioration. Recent reports have demonstrated safety and efficacy of mini-open removal of these tumors using expandable tubular retractors. The authors report their experience with the minimally invasive removal of extradural foraminal and intradural-extramedullary tumors using the nonexpandable tubular retractor. METHODS A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive resection of spinal tumors at Notre Dame Hospital was performed. RESULTS Between December 2005 and March 2012, 13 patients underwent minimally invasive removal of spinal tumors at Notre Dame Hospital, Montreal. There were 6 men and 7 women with a mean age of 55 years (range 20-80 years). There were 2 lumbar and 2 thoracic intradural-extramedullary tumors and 7 thoracic and 2 lumbar extradural foraminal tumors. Gross-total resection was achieved in 12 patients. Subtotal resection (90%) was attained in 1 patient because the tumor capsule was adherent to the diaphragm. The average duration of surgery was 189 minutes (range 75-540 minutes), and the average blood loss was 219 ml (range 25-500 ml). There were no major procedure-related complications. Pathological analysis revealed benign schwannoma in 8 patients and meningioma, metastasis, plasmacytoma, osteoid osteoma, and hemangiopericytoma in 1 patient each. The average equivalent dose of postoperative narcotics after surgery was 66.3 mg of morphine. The average length of hospitalization was 66 hours (range 24-144 hours). All working patients returned to normal activities within 4 weeks. The average MRI and clinical follow-up were 13 and 21 months, respectively (range 2-68 months). At last follow-up, 92% of patients had improvement or resolution of pain with a visual analog scale score that improved from 7.8 to 1.2. All patients with neurological impairment improved. The American Spinal Injury Association grade improved in all but 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS Intradural-extramedullary and extradural tumors can be completely and safely resected through a minimally invasive approach using the nonexpandable tubular retractor. This approach may be associated with even less tissue destruction than mini-open techniques, translating into a quicker functional recovery. In cases of foraminal tumors, by eliminating the need for facetectomy, this minimally invasive approach may decrease the incidence of postoperative deformity and eliminate the need for adjunctive fusion surgery.

[1]  A. Cenic,et al.  Minimally Invasive Approach for the Resection of Spinal Neoplasm , 2011, Spine.

[2]  B. Koes,et al.  Tubular Diskectomy vs Conventional Microdiskectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disk Herniation: 2-Year Results of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial , 2011, Neurosurgery.

[3]  Daniel C. Lu,et al.  A comparison of mini-open and open approaches for resection of thoracolumbar intradural spinal tumors. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  A. Nowitzke,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Tumor Removal Using a Minimally Invasive Approach , 2011, Neurosurgery.

[5]  R. Fessler,et al.  MINIMALLY INVASIVE RESECTION OF INTRAMEDULLARY EPENDYMOMA: CASE REPORT , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[6]  Lacey E. Bresnahan,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of traditional and minimally invasive intradural tumor exposures using finite element analysis. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  Lacey E. Bresnahan,et al.  A Biomechanical Evaluation of Graded Posterior Element Removal for Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis: Comparison of a Minimally Invasive Approach With Two Standard Laminectomy Techniques , 2009, Spine.

[8]  Daniel C. Lu,et al.  Mini-open removal of extradural foraminal tumors of the lumbar spine. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  R. Fessler,et al.  Minimally invasive posterior thoracic fusion. , 2008, Neurosurgical focus.

[10]  Regis G. Hoppenot,et al.  Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. , 2008, Neurosurgical focus.

[11]  Paul Park,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. , 2008, Neurosurgical focus.

[12]  Seung-Jin Noh,et al.  Removal of intradural-extramedullary spinal cord tumors with unilateral limited laminectomy. , 2008, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[13]  R. Mimran,et al.  Comparison of Techniques for Decompressive Lumbar Laminectomy: the Minimally Invasive versus the “Classic” Open Approach , 2008, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[14]  J. F. Harrington,et al.  Open versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Microdiscectomy: Comparison of Operative Times, Length of Hospital Stay, Narcotic Use and Complications , 2008, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[15]  J. Gilsbach,et al.  STANDARD OPEN MICRODISCECTOMY VERSUS MINIMAL ACCESS TROCAR MICRODISCECTOMY: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY , 2008, Neurosurgery.

[16]  H. Ozawa,et al.  Spinal dumbbell tumors: an analysis of a series of 118 cases. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  Yung Park,et al.  Comparison of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed With a Minimally Invasive Approach or a Traditional Open Approach , 2007, Spine.

[18]  P. Santiago,et al.  Minimally Invasive Resection of Intradural-Extramedullary Spinal Neoplasms , 2006, Neurosurgery.

[19]  P. Celli,et al.  Spinal extradural schwannoma. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[20]  Takahiro Jinnai,et al.  Clinical Characteristics of Spinal Nerve Sheath Tumors: Analysis of 149 Cases , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[21]  S. Chiou,et al.  Microsurgical unilateral approaches for spinal tumour surgery: Eight years' experience in 256 primary operated patients , 1989, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[22]  R. Fessler,et al.  Minimally Invasive Cervical Microendoscopic Foraminotomy: An Initial Clinical Experience , 2002, Neurosurgery.

[23]  B. Ramamurthi,et al.  Giant invasive spinal schwannomas: definition and surgical management. , 2001, Journal of neurosurgery.

[24]  A. Menkü,et al.  Hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal lesions , 2000, Spinal Cord.

[25]  B. Ramamurthi,et al.  Limited unilateral approach for extramedullary spinal tumours. , 1998, British journal of neurosurgery.

[26]  A. Luessenhop,et al.  The role of spinal fusion in surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. , 1997, Neurosurgical focus.

[27]  H. Bozkuş,et al.  Unilateral hemilaminectomy for the removal of the spinal space-occupying lesions. , 1997, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[28]  P. Papagelopoulos,et al.  Spinal Column Deformity and Instability After Lumbar or Thoracolumbar Laminectomy for Intraspinal Tumors in Children and Young Adults , 1997, Spine.

[29]  J. Jääskeläinen,et al.  Long-term outcome after removal of spinal schwannoma: a clinicopathological study of 187 cases. , 1995, Journal of neurosurgery.

[30]  J. Jääskeläinen,et al.  Long-term outcome after removal of spinal neurofibroma. , 1995, Journal of neurosurgery.

[31]  M. Schork,et al.  Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Radiographic changes and clinical correlations. , 1994, Journal of neurosurgery.

[32]  B. Tranmer,et al.  Unilateral partial hemi-laminectomy for the removal of extra- and intramedullary tumours and AVMs. , 1991, Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery.

[33]  H. A. Peterson,et al.  Incidence of spinal column deformity after multilevel laminectomy in children and adults. , 1982, Journal of neurosurgery.